Abstract
Battles are either won or lost because of a commander’s decision. As a leader of his team, the commander is the central authority when it comes to the military decision making process. But underlying these decisions are his subordinates who are often tasked with making plans and course of actions. These courses of actions are often laid-out by subordinate officers, which make them highly influential in the outcome of a commander’s decision. Over the years, standard procedures have been developed and observed when making decisions in the military. Of particular interest is the seven decision-making steps outlined by the Center For Army Lessons Learned. By examining the roles of the staffs in these standard decision making procedures, this paper aims to determine how a commander’s staffs anticipate the outcome of operations in order to develop concepts for follow-on missions. The paper also discusses the importance of good decision making process in the military and the role that staffs’ play in accomplishing this goal.
Introduction
The legendary Chinese general, Sun Tzu, who authored one of the earliest military treatises, ‘The Art of War,’ advises that the success of a military operation depends on many elements; primary of which is the laying of plans, strategies and tactics. According to Tzu, one should modify plans, according to favorable circumstances with the primary intention of deceiving one’s foe. Tzu’s treatise may be written many centuries ago, yet his ideas are still relevant even in the contemporary military setting. In the 21st century, the technologies and tools used in war may have greatly improved, but the basic principles of war remain the same. As observed by experts, “war at the strategic level is an intellectual process and the development and implementation of strategy is a creative activity, some form of intellectual framework is required to shape the strategist's thought processes” (Johnsen, Johnson, Kievit, Lovelace, & Metz, 1995, p.1). In general, the military decision making process is an intellectual activity that involves not only the decision maker, but also the people who are instrumental in influencing the decision reached. The commander may have the last say in a military decision, but he heavily relies his decision making based on the information provided for him by his staff. For the same reason, the role of the staff officers in the decision making process of a military commander could not be undermined.
Anticipation of Operation Outcomes and Developing Concepts on Follow-on Missions
The anticipation of operation outcomes is also equivalent to predicting the outcome of a military operation and is a crucial objective in the military decision making process. In fact, one of the seven decision making steps outlined by the Center For Army Lessons Learned, the ‘Course of Action (War Game),’ provides that course of actions should not only be theoretical, but rather tested in actual operation environment (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.16). War games ensures that a course of action is not only feasible as an intellectual outcome, but also feasily in reality. The importance of anticipating operation outcomes and developing concepts for follow-on missions could not be under estimated. A fairly good example of neglecting such process has been observed in the case of the Potomac army led by General Ambrose Everett Burnside in the Battle of Fredericksburg during the American Civil War. The Army of Potomac is considered as the largest army of the Union forces. After taking command of the Army of Potomac, General Burnside, as urged by Lincoln, decided to pursue General Lee of the Confederate army by swiftly moving his forces to Richmond through the Rappahannock River. However, in order to cross the river, pontoon bridges would have to be made. In anticipation of his army’s crossing of the river, Burnside ordered the pontoon bridges in advanced. As he marched his army towards the Rappahannock, he was promised that the pontoon bridges would follow as soon as he arrived. In just two days, General Burnside and the Potomac army marched from Warrenton to Fredericksburg. But unfortunately, the materials for the pontoon bridges have not yet arrived. It is quite clear that there was incoordination on the part of General Burnside and the staff of officers responsible for procuring the materials for the bridges. As a result, Burnside’s initial plan of crossing the river undetected was lost. Despite losing the element of surprise, General Burnside decided to wait for the materials to arrive. It took more than a week, however, before the first pontoon bridge material arrived; giving the enemies enough time to secure their positions and make fortifications on the other side of the river.
The Link between Anticipating Operation Outcomes and Developing Concepts on Follow-on Missions
The principle of ‘anticipating outcomes’ is strongly linked and interconnected with the principle of ‘developing concepts for follow-on missions.’ These two principles sync perfectly with each other that the success of the latter is determined by the success of the former. In the case of the Battle of Fredericksburg, it is quite apparent that Burnside and his staff failed to anticipate the outcome of their operations, which resulted to major lapses in the General’s decisions. It should be noted that the Potomac army’s follow-on missions in the Battle of Fredericksburg resulted to major losses. For some reason, Burnside pushed through with his plans despite the unfavorable circumstances waiting for him. Burnside disregarded the enemy’s preparation and ordered his men to build the bridge despite being under heavy fire from the Confederate snipers who has taken positions on the other bank of the river. Building the bridges became a deadly and painfully slow activity because of the snipers on the other side of the river. Burnside ordered his men to cross the river by boats in order to clear the snipers, but they did not only clear the building of snipers, they also ransacked and looted the city. After several days, Burnside and his army were able to force their way through the river only to face the fortified positions of General Lee’s Confederate army. According to observers, Burnside’s army became sitting ducks. In a letter sent to his wife, one confederate army observed, “I think my brigade can whip ten thousand of them attacking us in front”. The Battle of Fredericksburg was one of the most devastating losses for the Union in the course of the civil war. As Governor Curtin puts it, "It was not a battle, it was butchery”.
The 7-Steps Of The Military Decision Making Process As A Way For Anticipating Operation Outcomes And Developing Concepts On Follow-On Missions
General Burnside’s experience may not be an isolated issue. Most likely, such uncoordinated movements and miscommunication experienced by Burnside and his staff are also among the major challenges faced by most commanders and their staff in contemporary military decision making process. Although the final decision is a responsibility that only a commander can do, his staff has a crucial role in the decision making process. According to experts, the primary role of the staff is to “assist the commander in his decisions” by collectively integrating “information with sound doctrine and technical competence” (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d. p.2). There are, for instance, seven steps in the military decision making process (MDMP): 1) receipt of mission; 2) mission analysis; 3) course of action development; 4) course of action analysis; 5) course of action comparison; 6) course of action approval; and 7) orders production. In each of these steps, the commander’s staff have key roles to play, which impacts how the staffs anticipate operation outcomes and develop conceps on follow-on missions. From receipt of the mission from the higher echelon, both the commander and his staff are already hands-on with the decision making process. After receiving the mission, the staffs are alerted and immediately prepares for the next step, which is the mission analysis (Center For Army Lessons Learned, n.d., p.9). It is also under this first step wherein the commander and his staff determines whether or not they will proceed with doing the full 7-steps MDMP or just make a shortcut. The key player in this initial step is the executive officer or the chief of staff, who determines the officers that would be involved in the mission (Center For Army Lessons Learned, n.d., p.10). After receiving the mission, the next step is to analyze the mission, which is done by the commander and his staffs. Among the key functions of the assigned staffs during this step is to identify and assess the risks and opportunities of the mission (Center For Army Lessons Learned, n.d., p.12). During this step, the commander provides guidance regarding the most important things that his staffs would have to consider. After which, the staffs issue a warning order wherein it restates the mission and clarifies the commander’s intent (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d. p.10). In the developing a course of action, it is recommended that the commander should involve the entire staff (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.11). Among the major considerations in this particular decision making stage are suitability, acceptability, feasibility, distinguishability and completeness (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.14). Several courses of actions may be considered. The war game, as a course of action, is an essential part of the military decision making process because it aims to mimic the scenario that the military will most likely experience in the execution of the mission. The major role of the staff during this step is to develop a detailed plan and exhaust efforts to identify risks or problems that may arise by making the mock exercise as real as possible (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.16). During this stage, each staff officer is tasked with analyzing, evaluating and presenting their own opinion regarding the course of actions that are being considered. The staffs compare one course of action to another to determine which COA will work best (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.24). After evaluation, the commander approves the COA that he thinks is the most suitable to accomplish the mission. In case the commander rejects the COA, the staffs will have to revise or develop a new COA (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.24). This is the end of the Military Decision Making Process wherein the commander’s decision is already final. The role of the staff during this stage is to refine the COA and to prepare the order (The Military Decision-Making Process, n.d., p.26).
Conclusion
In the history of the military, it can be deduced that battles are being won not only by courage and bravery, but through good decision making. However, it is not only the commander that is involved in the military’s decision making process, but also his staffs or subordinates. Crucial to this decision making process is the ability of the commander and his staff to anticipate operation outcomes, which is also interrelated with the ability to develop concepts on follow-on missions. Through the seven decision-making steps outlined by Center For Army Lessons Learned, particularly in the actualization of course of actions as what is being done during war games, staffs can make military operations a highly predictable activity. Through these steps, the staffs can also develop sound concepts on follow-on operations. Because of the crucial role that they play in the MDMP, the staffs competence and skill is essential in the success of the mission. As an intellectual activity, the decision making process is best accomplished through the deliberations of individuals with the involvement, not only of the commanding officer, but of his competent staffs.
References
Center For Army Lessons Learned. (n.d.). Military Decision Making Process. Retrieved June 2016, from http://usacac.army.mil/: http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf
Giles. (1910). Sun Tzu on the Art of War. Retrieved June 2016, from https://www.ualberta.ca/~enoch/Readings/The_Art_Of_War.pdf
Johnsen, W., Johnson, D., Kievit, J., Lovelace, D., & Metz, S. (1995). The Principles of War in the 21st Century: Strategic Considerations. Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/princwar.pdf
The Military Decision-Making Process. (n.d.). Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.au.af.mil/: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/fm101-5_mdmp.pdf
National Park Service. (n.d.). The Battle of Fredericksburg. Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.nps.gov/: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/civil_war_series/15/sec1.htm
Rafuse, E. (n.d.). Battle of Fredericksburg. Retrieved June 2016, from http://encyclopediavirginia.org/: http://encyclopediavirginia.org/Fredericksburg_Battle_of
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2004). Battle of Fredericksburg. Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.reference.com/: http://www.reference.com/browse/battle+of+fredericksburg
